[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] net: adding memory barrier to the poll and receive callbacks
    On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:36:30AM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
    > On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
    > > > I think Oleg already said this, but you can use directly poll_wait()
    > > > without adding another abstraction, and the compiler will drop the double
    > > > check for you:
    > >
    > > I think Oleg told about cosmetics and let Jiri to choose. I'd only
    > > add it's not mainly about optimization, but easy showing the main
    > > difference, of course depending on taste.
    > We already have a universally used function to do that, and that's
    > poll_wait().
    > That code (adding an extra __poll_wait()) was entirely about
    > optimizations (otherwise why not use the existing poll_wait()?), so if
    > the optimization does not actually take place, IMO it's better to not add
    > an extra API.

    OK, you're right, it is about optimization! But IMHO mainly about
    reading optimization... I simply guess me and probably Jiri too,
    after reading Oleg's variant thought about compiler, instead of the
    real difference.

    Btw., maybe I miss something but I guess Oleg proposed something in
    between: inlining __poll_wait(), which would save us 'extra API' and
    compiler doubts. (But I still prefer Jiri's choice. ;-)

    Jarek P.

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-06-29 20:07    [W:0.022 / U:9.320 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site